Bill Overview
Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to establish a preference for domestically manufactured or produced food for military working dogs, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Defense Logistics Agency within the Department of Defense to give preference for the acquisition of food for military working dogs that is manufactured or produced in the United States by an entity that is based in the United States using only ingredients and materials that are grown, mined, manufactured, or produced in the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in the global supply chain for military working dog food
Estimated Size: 75000
- The primary populations directly impacted by this bill are companies involved in the production of food for military working dogs, specifically those located in the United States.
- This shift is likely to impact U.S. manufacturers positively by increasing demand for their products.
- Foreign manufacturers who currently supply food for military dogs may lose business opportunities due to the new preference for domestic products.
- Military working dogs receive nutritious diets, thus changes in food sourcing may indirectly impact their health and performance.
- The bill indirectly affects individuals involved in the supply chain for ingredients and materials used in dog food production, including farmers and miners in the U.S.
Reasoning
- The policy is likely to create a shift in demand towards U.S.-based suppliers of ingredients for dog food, potentially increasing business opportunities and job security for those in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors within the country.
- With the budgetary constraint of $500,000 in year 1, the immediate impact may be limited; however, the policy sets a precedence that could lead to longer-term changes in the supply chain that would unfold over the 10-year scope of the policy.
- Business owners currently supplying dog food products to the military may experience a competitive advantage if they meet the domestic sourcing requirements, leading to increased revenue over time.
- Conversely, foreign suppliers currently serving this market will gradually lose their contracts leading to reduced business opportunities for them and any U.S. entities that relied on imports.
- The impact on military working dogs could indirectly affect personnel responsible for their care, depending on changes in quality or availability of certain food products.
Simulated Interviews
Pet food manufacturing business owner (Kansas, USA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic about this policy as it will likely increase demand for our products, providing more business stability.
- However, I'm wary of ensuring all ingredients meet the U.S. sourcing criteria, which might increase costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Supply chain manager for a pet food company (Texas, USA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will complicate supply management by enforcing domestic sourcing, but it may create more local job opportunities.
- Ethical sourcing becomes easier to verify domestically, which is a plus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Veterinarian specializing in military working dogs (California, USA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring high-quality nutrition for military working dogs is paramount.
- I support domestic sourcing if it ensures better traceability and quality control.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Farmworker (Georgia, USA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might result in more local demand for our crops.
- However, there's a concern about increased expectations on production quality and quantity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Dog food import/export specialist (New York, USA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could drastically reduce my area of business with the military sector.
- Domestic preference might lower international competitiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 7 |
Owner of a small ingredient supply company (Illinois, USA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential growth opportunities with this policy, should we qualify as a supplier.
- Concerns include whether we can scale up production to meet new demands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Military personnel responsible for working dog unit (Virginia, USA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am neutral on this policy as long as food quality is maintained or improved.
- Consistency in dog food can prevent health issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Distributor of pet food (Ohio, USA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased domestic production needs align with our distribution plans.
- Logistics may initially experience hiccups with supply chain shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Policy analyst in agricultural sector (Colorado, USA)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems positive for the U.S. economy, providing local farmers and manufacturers with new opportunities.
- It will require tight monitoring to ensure the policy's goals are met without increased bureaucracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental scientist (Washington, USA)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The environmental impact of increased local agricultural production must be carefully managed.
- This policy could be good, provided it encourages sustainable practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $750000)
Year 2: $475000 (Low: $237500, High: $712500)
Year 3: $450000 (Low: $225000, High: $675000)
Year 5: $400000 (Low: $200000, High: $600000)
Year 10: $350000 (Low: $175000, High: $525000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Key Considerations
- Capacity of U.S. manufacturers to meet increased demand without significant price increases.
- Potential regulatory compliance costs for suppliers needing to demonstrate the U.S. origin of materials.
- Inflationary effects if domestic supply chains cannot scale efficiently.